It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

page: 72
216
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


Oh, so what happened to these BRIGHT lights also?
labeled as number 2








posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Nice baiting! Keep on reinforcing the persona you're creating for yourself...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I dont think thats correct about the panning. Yes #1 seems to go straight up. #2 does go to the left at first, but does he not correct it back to the right?

Its hard to tell. You loose all orientation once the cityscape is out of the picture.


Oh, I do agree, thats why I would love to see the work now being done with the red lights sequence from all 3 videos. I think it can possibly add something to the debate.

The panning is important, but we also need to see if witnesses can relate which way the lights went, since I pointed out that the only perspective that appears possible would be behind and up from camera 4. If witnesses testify another direction, then it seals the case.

If the light sequences are different between 2 and 4, then it means the lights went centrally up, or left or right, but either way it can possibly debunk one of any of the videos. Just an interesting angle to consider, I think.
Especially since the first half of the video has been well reviewed.

I would also like to see a lightening of the background on some stills of the red lights, to see if it brings anything out of the darkness. I am just not good with images, and only have Paint and what not.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 











edit on 4-2-2011 by ExCloud because: linked yours my bad



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The original poster of the fourth video is starting to show signs of life on his/her channel comments


PetraRaab1 (10 hours ago) The guy which tell, that you are "secrets agents" in his video, discredits you. Informs you by youtube. It`s not correctly. Youtube can close his video. You have the rights about this video.

YDMU1 (10 hours ago) how??

PetraRaab1 (9 hours ago) Under his video there is a flag. When you go on it, there came "injures my rights" so you can go on it and it came if my copyright injures.

YDMU1 (3 hours ago)
i will make a decision if to speak about this event but right now im worried becuse my rights have been injured by a jurnulist who toke my videos and discredit me


YDMU1's YouTube Channel



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


Im not sure what you was showing in the red, in the first pic theres 6 photos shown, in the second pic theres only 5.

In the area of number 2, theres a whole wad of bright lights missing from video 1.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al E. Inn
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


I'm conivenced all the video's are a hoax but still intrigued enough to review the video. I believe the hoaxers left clues in video 4, not the least of which is the music and images left as shadows and images in the mirrors. Also a few bad splices. You're analysis have been thorough and I would like your opinion on video 4 specifically the images in the rear view mirror at :23-:26 and the "splice" at 2:52 and 2:53 (a street light shows prematurely over the shirt of the passenger).
In any event thank you for your posts and efforts.


Why do you believe the splices to be suspect. It is RAW footage. When your just jacking around with a camera your going to be on and off the REC button..yes...no?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I am sorry that I have not read through the entire thread. But did they ever determine what the video in Utah was? My family and I live in NW Arkansas and we saw something very similar on Sunday 1/30/11. It was so odd. We were heading home from a realtive's and noticed a bright white light in the sky that was not blinking. We watched it for about a mile but then lost it behind some trees on a mountain. A little further down the road my husband said "there it is", but it wasn't. It was a flickering bright white light smaller than the original and it was falling. My mind was racing trying to figure out what it could be, and a flare came to mind, but it did not shoot into the air, it was just falling and flickering. We live out in the country and see "shooting stars" all the time and this was definitely not one.

I hadn't thought about it since then until I saw the video from Utah. We have seen some weird stuff around here before so we just blew it off. Anyway, if anyone has an update on the Utah video, please post! Thank you!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


I posted some questions also, regarding the recording you linked to. The second sound in there is an echo, you can tell it from just listening to it. Why would there be discrepancies in a returning echo? The volume, one would think, would be nearly identical on a returning sound, would it not?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Video 1 is not zoomed in video 2 is closer and a little bit more zoomed in I believe. For some reason my 2nd image wont load up.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Video 1 is not zoomed in video 2 is closer and a little bit more zoomed in I believe. For some reason my 2nd image wont load up.


But these are bright lights, it seems to see all the other lights just fine. It sees the blue orb light just fine in both videos, so why is the bundle of lights (number 2 label) missing from video 1? video 1 has a wider frame. We are also not talking about lights off in the distance, miles away, these are the closest lights to their vantage point.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Maybe it will work in a new post







posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Video 1 is not zoomed in video 2 is closer and a little bit more zoomed in I believe. For some reason my 2nd image wont load up.


Yes and also, video 1 seems to be in some night mode, or just a lesser quality cam. There is a lot of blackening in the video, which seems an apparent attempt to correct itself.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Also in video 4 the original poster of the video on youtube entitles the post:

UFO - JERUSALEM -Temple Mount - THE BEST SIGHTING-the FULL MOVIE

Isn't naming it "The Full Movie" pretty much an admission that this is an effort to make a "movie".
Enjoy the movie, later I suggest we debunk MIB 2.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


if my other image would link I have uploaded it 3 times not one of the links will work you would see how I have the blobs of light circled so you know what your looking at.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Quartza
 


That's why I asked it to be reviewed if it is truly "raw footage" why does a streetlight appear on the passengers shirt prior to it appearing in the street?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al E. Inn
Also in video 4 the original poster of the video on youtube entitles the post:

UFO - JERUSALEM -Temple Mount - THE BEST SIGHTING-the FULL MOVIE

Isn't naming it "The Full Movie" pretty much an admission that this is an effort to make a "movie".
Enjoy the movie, later I suggest we debunk MIB 2.


That's a mighty big assumption there.

Perhaps they call them movies more than we call them videos. I suppose it could depend on culture, or the format he gets from his phone or camera could be .mov

I cannot see that as a serious admission of anything.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Quartza
 


I agree, the guy gets out of the car, its logical he might turn his camera off at that point.
He walks towards the lookout, maybe even has a pee himself, the light is noticed hovering over the rock and the cam is reactivated to film it
There is nothing about that gap that is conclusive proof of a hoax, there are mundane explanations for it



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Al E. Inn
 


This is my analysis of video 4:
www.youtube.com...

-The camera shake is inhumanly consistent. I have seen the fake camera shake in so many CGI videos that I can see it from a mile away. I am talking about 100% perfectly consistent number of shakes per second and 100% consistent velocity/magnitude. Obviously they add shake to the camera for effect, because their original source video was probably on a tripod to make it easier to add a CGI element.

-The zoom is 100% digital. Meaning... exactly what you would see with fake CGI zoom. Obviously because it is hard to zoom on a CGI object and make it look right... they added a CGI element to a video that never zoomed at all, and added the zoom later for effect. And if you want to believe the video with the kids in the car, it shows signs of REAL zoom, not digital zoom, during that video segment.

- The lighting is completely fake... like others have pointed out in video 1 about the light growing.... in video 4 the entire lighting effect was the same... all they did was use 3D lighting commonly found in special effects software which creates light sources that "Add" to existing light on the video. It increased the brightness off all the brightest pixels and it spills over to adjacent pixels. It even creates the illusion that buildings are being lit up because faint pixels that are nearly dark are increased and the pixelated look creates the illusion of building walls... The light is fake.

- The light on the dome is unrealistic. What they did was create a 3D layer over the existing temple/image, and they changed the layer mode to "color dodge", and they created a 3D light on top of that layer. So everywhere they move the light, it reflects on the dome.... the problem is.. their "specular" and "diffuse" settings were set way too high so all you see is a white circle, you don't see any fall off. It is completely unrealistic...

The only real camera movement is when they pan up in the sky...

Of course... you would have to be well experienced in graphics to see these issues... so that leaves it up to the unexperienced to make excuses why they think it is real.... whatever..

I think the camera shake is obviously fake and if you actually study it, and try to replicate it your self you will understand how fake it truly is.
edit on 4-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Al E. Inn
 


English is not their native language..... perhaps they used movie instead of video or recording
we see this sort of substitution often when people are using a language thats not their native one



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join